Commentary and Criticism by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Back in 2023, when the Faithful of Rome gathered to elect the successor of Pope Benedict XVI, on account of the grave and extraordinary circumstance of the defection of the entire College of Cardinals, because of their wilful conspiracy in the illegal Conclave of 2013, against the reigning Pontiff who never validly renounced his petrine munus, the Genoese Canonist Guido Ferro Canale, who holds a Doctorate in Canon Law, objected to the proceedings before the fact, in an article I refuted, HERE.

Three weeks later, evidently still wincing from my corrections, he penned the above article, entitled, “More on the Assembles which elect the Pope”, in which he discusses the history of jurisprudence and disputations on the question of electing the Roman Pontiff, and which was published on the website of Radio Spada, which is considered a far-right pro-sedevacantist website here in Northern Italy. However, I am reliably informed that Guido Ferro Canale is a Canon Lawyer accredited at the Roman Rota, in Rome.

I never knew of his refutation, so I will comment on it, now, since unwittingly, Canonist Canale two years ago explained how the Faithful of Rome this year of 2025 can indeed elect the Roman Pontiff in the quasi-impossible hypothetical occurrence when all the Cardinals defect from their duty to elect a Roman Pontiff legitimately.

I must say, that I have never encountered any scholar or lawyer who in attempting to refute me conceded nearly every argument I would move again in two years time. But the amazing literary production of Canonist Canale deserves mention and praise, even though we do not agree on all points.

However, quoting what he wrote more than two years ago will serve to silence the fake scholars out there who are claiming that the Faithful of Rome cannot act in the present circumstances of the illegal election of a formal manifest heretic, the conditions of which go beyond the impossible hypothetical conceived of by Canale in February, 2023.

The Hypothetical Impossibility of no Cardinals to elect a Pope

By “hypothetical impossibility”, I mean the possible case in which there are no Cardinals alive or no Cardinals willing to elect a pope according to the current law or laws in force for this. Each of these causes of the hypothetical impossibility are causes which in the juridical order are considered equivalent. Thus, whether there actually be no living Cardinal electors, or whether they all decide to violate the rules or elect a heretic, in jurisprudence the same question arises: what is to be done? how is a valid Catholic to be elected, then?

Canonist Canale discusses this under n. 3 of his above article, where he writes:

3. Un corpo elettorale di riserva?

Ci si è chiesti, naturalmente, cosa accadrebbe se dovesse venir meno l’intero Collegio cardinalizio: il dubbio precede di diversi secoli i problemi attuali e, anche se a suo tempo è stato discusso come tranquillo problema di scuola, non vi è unanimità tra gli autori. Per quanto ho appena detto, è chiaro che si tratta di un caso quasi impossibile, perché anche i Cardinali dubbi eleggerebbero validamente (e avrebbero, quindi, il diritto e il dovere di procedere); vale tuttavia la pena di riferire che le opinioni che si contendono il campo sono tre, perché secondo alcuni, venuto meno il Collegio, l’elezione del Papa spetterebbe ai canonici lateranensi, secondo altri si devolverebbe ai Pastori di grado inferiore e quindi al Concilio imperfetto, mentre la terza opinione afferma che, siccome il caso non è mai stato disciplinato, limitatamente ad esso debbono considerarsi tuttora in vigore le norme precedenti, come dire l’elezione “a clero e popolo” (17).

Which I translate into English, thus:

3. Is there a back-up Electorate?

It has also been asked, naturally, what would happen if the entire College of Cardinals would fail: the doubt has already been considered during the last few centuries before any such case has arisen, and has been considered as an easy problem in the schools, though there is no unanimity among authors. Inasmuch as I have already said, it is clear that it deals with a quasi impossible case, since even doubtfully valid Cardinals are able to validly elect a Pope (along with having the right to convene and prosecute such an election); however, its worth the while to list the three best argued opinions in the field, because according to some, if the College should fail, then the election of the Roman Pontiff would pertain to the Canons of the Lateran Basilica; second, that the election would devolve to clerics of lesser dignity, and thus to an imperfect Council; while the third opinion affirms, since the case has never been considered in any written law, regarding such a special case, the preceding norms in force would have to be resorted to, that is, to an election “by clergy and people”.

Here in footnote 17, he remarks that there is no author he can cite for the third opinion. That is because it is the opinion I have sustained, and I will let pass that he should have cited me in my scholastic question (English version, Italian version), which he certain knew of. But, that he cites it is at least the recognition that my opinion on this question deserves consideration alongside the greatest of canonists of the past, which is certainly the greatest compliment any living canonist has ever paid me. Thank you Doctor!

Canale then explains that there is no written law in the history of ecclesiastical jurisprudence which can resolve the differences of opinion here. Nevertheless, he excludes the first opinion, since in no papal legislation or council has the right to elect the Roman Pontiff been conceded to the canons of the Cathedral of Rome, the Lateran Basilica. He also excludes the second opinion, because among experts in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, there is an unresolved debate whether the office of Roman Pontiff is inextricable or not from the Bishop of Rome. If it is not, then the second opinion would fail, if I understand Canale correctly, in his previous article.

Finally, he speaks directly of my opinion, the third one, thus:

Non resta, allora, che rifarsi alla terza opinione, l’unica che possa invocare in proprio favore un sicuro fondamento positivo: la legge anteriore, che si presume non abrogata quando la nuova non regoli un qualche caso.

Which in English, I translate thus:

Nothing else remains, then, but to have recourse to the third opinion, the only one of which invokes in its own favor a secure positive foundation: the previous law, which one presumes is not abrogated when the new one does not regulate a specific case.

Thank you Doctor. It’s not every day, that a Franciscan Brother, who holds no degree in Canon Law, is honored with such respect by a Doctor of Canon Law.

After conceding that, the Jurist militates many of his own opinions, without any basis in positive law, even though he just praised the third opinion for having this quality. He holds that laity can pariticipate, but he argues they have only the right to veto. Second, he claims that clergy must be present, and cites as a precedent an election of an antipope by Louis of Bavaria in 1328 — not a good choice for a precedent, in my mind. And finally he claims that by “clergy” one must consider only those of the Diocese of Rome, without considering the fact that in the time of Saint Peter the Apostle there existed only two dioceses in Latium, Rome and Nepi. The suburbican did not yet exist, nor would they be called specifically suburbican until more than a 1000 years later.

What Canale does, which of course I find most objectionable, is that he specifically denies “apostolic right” as a category of right, in footnote 18, where he writes:

[18] Non si tratta comunque, beninteso, di un preteso ius apostolicum, categoria già di per sé inutile perché tutto ciò che gli Apostoli hanno disposto rientra o nel diritto divino oppure in quello umano: appunto perché siamo nel campo della semplice legge umana, la disciplina che si può supporre ancora in vigore per questo solo caso è quella immediatamente anteriore alla riserva dell’elezione ai Cardinali.

Which in English I translate as:

[18] This does not, however, if well understood, deal with the pretext of “apostolic right” (ius apostolicum), a category which is already per se useless, since everything which the Apostles did re-entered into either divine right or in human right: and indeed we are discussing simply human law, the discipline which one can suppose is still in force only for this case, is that which was immediately the prior one, which reserved the election to the Cardinals.

Here, Canale is, I believe, referring either to the Bull of Pope Nicholas II, In Nomine Domini, which was the first written papal law on the election of the Roman Pontiff which restricted the election to the Cardinals, or to the decision of the Apostle Saint Peter to grant this right to the Church at Rome. — Since Pope John Paul II in his own law, Universi Dominici Gregis, explicitly abrogates all previous papal laws, I think the stronger argument is that “the previous discipline” is that of Apostolic right, which no Pope can abrogate in principle, not that of Nicholas II, though, the difference is a small one, since in n. 3 of that Bull, Pope Nicholas II himself speaks of extraordinary circumstances and implicitly uses the same argument as Canale of recourse to a higher font of right, a thing which Cardinals Saint Peter Damnian and Hubert along with the Archdeacon Saint Hildebrand of Saona, did in the election of 1058, in Tuscany, at Sienna, when they elected Gerard, the Bishop of Florence, as Nicholas II, in the presence of a small number of clergy and laity of Rome.

Criticism

I do not think there is any need to refute Canale’s final denial, since it is patent to any reader that there is a substantial defect in subsuming ius apostolicum under Divine right, since in this case the historical circumstances have everything to do with the precise determinations of right in this extraordinary and nearly impossible case.

First, because by specifying the previous law as Apostolic Right, one founds the argument on the historical inspired decision of the Apostle Saint Peter, confirmed by the Apostle Saint Paul, to grant the election to the entire Roman Church, a Church which in the year of the Prince of the Apostle’s death included nearly all of Latium, excepting the Diocese of Nepi (which has never been part of a suburbican diocese). — Thus, clearly the right to vote pertains to all the members of that Church, not only the clergy, because there are no written restrictions of such a kind in the historical record. Also, the right to vote does not only pertain to the clergy of the Diocese of Rome but to at least all the suburbicans, which were part of Rome at the death of the Apostle, if not to all the rest of Lazio. Furthermore, it pertains to all the Catholic Clergy of Rome, not only to those of the Roman rite, but to all the rites simply because there was no such distinction of jurisdictions in the days of the Apostle.

Conclusion

Thus, the “Save Rome” Project is fully justified and its principles of right have, unwittingly, been approved of by one of the more famous Italian experts in canon law, two years ago, before he even conceived that an invalid election of a formal manifest heretic might make the impossible hypothetical even more impossible. For on account of the heretical nature of the election, there is even greater necessity to fill the office, as Pope Paul IV refers to in his own Constitution, “Cum ex apostolatus officio“, where he says Catholics have the right to fill the offices held by any heretics, immediately (cf. § 5). Since, even if all the clergy of Lazio adhere to the heretic Prevost, by that very fault, they forfeit even the deference owed through the ages to their preeminent position in the election of the Roman Pontiff. — Though in fact, by receiving the thousands of letters I have already sent out, and making no objections to my arguments and proposal of an election by Apostolic Right, if the Clergy of the Church at Rome remain silent after September 24, they will have tacitly conceded that the election can be called and a Catholic elected. And that is, in jurisprudence, tantamount to voting and to being present. And that is precisely why I wrote the clergy, so that they could exonerate themselves in the most facile manner possible.

Note: What I call an election by “apostolic right”, Canale calls an election by “positive right”, but we both refer to the same thing, an election by the clergy and faithful of Rome: thus in the title of this present article I have used the term more familiar to the readers of FromRome.Info.

+ + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +